Just when we thought it might be safe to say Republicans learned in last year's election not to underestimate the power of 50 percent of their constituents, aka WOMEN, here comes New Hampshire state Rep. Peter Hansen, referring to women as "vaginas." Yes, like a petulant, pre-pubescent boy.

After a colleague gave a speech on a "stand your ground" gun bill, Hansen had the following to say via email ...

What could possibly be missing from those factual tales of successful retreat in VT, Germany, and the bowels of Amsterdam? Why children and vagina's [sic] of course. While the tales relate the actions of a solitary male the outcome cannot relate to similar situations where children and women and mothers are the potential victims.

Um, WHAT?! Yeah, it's offensive on so many levels. What is this -- 1952? Is government still just a boys' club where old white guys sit around smoking cigars and making decisions for the rest of us? I don't think soooo.

Thankfully, a handful of other Republicans have immediately realized that Hansen's language is hugely offensive to, well, just about half of the country. Not to mention other politicians who happen to HAVE vaginas ... but aren't okay with being referred to as female genitalia. For instance, state Republican chair Jennifer Horn remarked:

There is no excuse for anybody to use such disrespectful language—especially an elected official. I strongly condemn his disrespectful and shameful remarks.

Good job. But Hansen himself doesn't seem prepared to step up to the plate and acknowledge that he screwed up royally. He first responded by saying, "If you find the noun vagina insulting or in some way offensive then perhaps a better exercise might be for you to re-examine your psyche." OMG. Has there ever been a more appropriate time to facepalm?! Then, he only slightly backtracked by saying in a statement:

Can there be any doubt my comment is being misinterpreted and taken completely out of context? ... I apologize to those who took offense.

What. A. @#$!-er. Here's hoping women voters remember this when they take to the polls and consider whether to re-elect a man who, in the 21st century America, clearly only sees women for what's between our legs.